The TAR for Liguria has confirmed the no to the request of GNV to carry out self-production operations in the port of Genoa

The port authority, by note of 2 May 2019, had rejected the request highlighting that the same - it is recalled in the judgment - "does not appear consistent with the regulatory framework and operational/managerial" defined by the reference legislation, in the light of which the execution of port operations under the self-production is configurable in relation to "single" ships on the occasion of individual approaches or some approaches programmed", while the GNV request had character "structural" as formulated sine die for the whole fleet of ships climbing the port of Genoa.

In the reply, the AdSP also announced the intention to "to interest the vigilant Ministry" for the purpose of promote "an updated and integrated reading" of the existing provisions on the subject as well as "a solution homogeneous at national level" in relation to the issue the self-production of rizzaggio activities and derizzaggio.

With a note of July 12, 2019 GNV had insisted on the release of the authorization receiving confirmation of the position from the AdSP of the institution with respect to this request expressed in the note of 2 May 2019. The shipping company had therefore presented appeal to the TAR for Liguria arguing preliminarily that, despite the "ambiguous editorial technique" used by the Port System Authority, the acts burdened do not express a definitive rejection of the application made for the self-production of rizzaggio and derizzaggio operations, "with the consequence that, in the absence of an explicit measure of denial, it must be considered formed the silence assent provided by law".

In the judgment of the TAR it is highlighted that with the note of 2 May 2019 the AdSP had indicated "in a complete and unrequitical way the reasons preventing the application made by the applicant, first because it is of a "structural" and not referring to individual approaches or to individual ships. The request for clarification at the bottom of the note the judgment states that the same was formulated in general terms, not to know the notice of the Ministry regarding the application of the applicant, already rejected on the basis of a widespread kit motivational, but to solicit directives at national level in theme of self-production of port operations or services. The note in word, therefore, does not constitute an interlocutory act, supra-department or intra-pro-proceed by configuring instead the final (and multi-reasoned) measure rejecting the application for authorisation'.